The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-06-01
to the Provisions OF the
(,OuStitutiOn.S

Some Of our contemporaries, among them
the Abbeville Press ana Banner, are still
claiming that the decision OF the supreme
Court in Aultman, Taylor go. rS. h1sli WAS
etc. 1t is very easy TO say tnat an titLS IN IN
unconstitutional, to show IL Is qnlte announcer
thing. Just as q specimen OF Il legal areuilellI
from the press we invite our contemporary 10
the task of showing the exact particlI.r "a
which the decision in question overrldcs Inc
Coustitution.-HunSbo NeUS ana Herdla.
Presuming that cur neighbor is sincere in
his desire for light on this subject. and Know
ing that Judge on the bench recently told
n lawyer that he did not care to hear his dhe
lawyers opinion, but would be glad for him
TO cite authorities, we will therefore cite
authorities to support our assertion that the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Rush
case was contrary to the provisions of the
Constitution
In the first place, we will ask our brothers
careful attention to the reading OF the dissent
ing opinion of Associate Justice MCGOWAN.
In the second place, we would ask our broth
er to read carefully the Judgment of Circuit
Judge T. b. Fraser, which we copy into these
columns for the. especial benefit and enlight-
eminent of the WinnSboro' Ne,cs and Herald,
and all others who may entertain doubt on
this subject.
In the third place. we would ask attention
to the fact that certainly seven of the eight
Circuit Judges dissent from the opinion OF q
majority of the Supreme Court.
In the fourth place, we would ask our broth
er's attention to the fact that rs far rs we have
heard. the Abbeville Bar, except in the indi'
vidual cases where the members are more or
less directly or remotely interested, believe
the judgment was erroneous.
In the fifth place, we have been reliably In.
formed that nearly all, If not quite all, the
lawyers in Charleston believe the Supreme
Court erred.
Having answered our brothers question at
some length we trust that we may be par
doned if We now ask him to cite authorities
to show that the words "as to-" properly mean
for the benefit Of" II there are law-gvers,
lawmakers, scientific, literary or religious
writer's who can be cited rs authority for put
ting such construction on these little words
las to'-our neishbor will do the Supreme
Court q grateful service by producing the
same. The Court in this dilemma needs all
the help they can get TO support them in their
monstrous Judgment In the Rush case, which
Is contrary to law, and violative OF the Con-
stitution.
Ordinarily Court may cite authorities and
split hairs until even good lawyers may have
to assent to the opinion of the Court. but In
this case the words Of the law and the Consti-
tuition are so plain, that any one with suffi.
cient education to read plain English, and
with sense enough TO go to mill, need not be
deceived. The Court is wrong; there can be
no rubbing 1t out, and Judge Fraser's opinion
can have no other effect than to prove the
error of the Court while it furnishes the
strongest argument for the reorganization OF
the Supreme Court as suggested by the Andcr-
son InteUigcncer.